Reader's Esoterica | Letters | Chicago Reader

News & Politics » Letters

Reader's Esoterica

by

Sign up for our newsletters Subscribe

comment

To the editors:

Robert McClory in his article about Thomas Sheehan (Reader, 4/21/89) remarks on the books on Sheehan's shelves as concerning "esoteric subjects like phenomenology and hermeneutics." Then a few lines later in the very same paragraph McClory blithely refers to metaphysics and Heidegger as if they are not esoteric. Where is McClory coming from? How is he drawing the line between esoteric and exoteric? Very technically speaking, all four notions/person above could be considered esoteric, in perhaps a strict dictionary definition of terms. But McClory is writing for a Reader audience. Do I overrate the audience? Any decently educated layman with just a passing knowlege of philosophy knows about phenomenology--at least he/she knows it exists as a philosophical perspective. And hermeneutics is no longer confined to theological discussions as maybe it once was ages ago. Any decently educated layman with just a passing knowledge of literary criticism knows about hermeneutics. I would assume that your average reader of the Reader would realize that Sheehan is doing hermeneutics; broadly understood, even McClory himself, as he writes, is doing hermeneutics. Esoteric? No, not at all.

Monty Jenkins

Chicago

Support Independent Chicago Journalism: Join the Reader Revolution

We speak Chicago to Chicagoans, but we couldn’t do it without your help. Every dollar you give helps us continue to explore and report on the diverse happenings of our city. Our reporters scour Chicago in search of what’s new, what’s now, and what’s next. Stay connected to our city’s pulse by joining the Reader Revolution.

Are you in?

  Reader Revolutionary $35/month →  
  Rabble Rouser $25/month →  
  Reader Radical $15/month →  
  Reader Rebel  $5/month  → 

Not ready to commit? Send us what you can!

 One-time donation  → 

Add a comment